Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irismeister 2/Evidence
Evidence by Jwros[edit]
Relevant behavior on talk pages
Irismeister is once again editing the section of this page which is restricted to my complaint. I hate to be a nuisance, but I feel that my moving the text may escalate matters. If a neutral party would oblige again (thank you Mav, for helping the first time) I would appreciate it.
I have not participated in arbitration as a primary party (although I contributed small amounts of evidence in two cases some time ago, as I recall), so I ask that you forgive me if I violate any of the guidelines, and correct me if I do. Below are the comments by Irismeister that caused my complaint most directly, although I believe them to be emblematic of a pattern of behavior pursued generally since his arrival here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Iridology&dummy=1&diff=3644517&oldid=3644245
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk%3AJwrosenzweig&diff=3648932&oldid=3648102
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk%3AJwrosenzweig&diff=3649713&oldid=3649549
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk%3AAlternative_medicine&diff=3650680&oldid=3650523
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk%3AAlternative_medicine&diff=3650342&oldid=3649960
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Iridology&diff=3645074&oldid=3644832
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk%3AAlternative_medicine&diff=0&oldid=3830577
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk%3AIridology&diff=3217569&oldid=3217413
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk%3AAlternative_medicine&diff=3647196&oldid=3645307
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk%3AAlternative_medicine&diff=3628829&oldid=3628268
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk%3AIridology&diff=3940657&oldid=3829158
My two chief complaints are the abusive treatment suffered by anyone who questions Irismeister and his statements, and the continued thinly-veiled legal threats (note the promise on at least two occasions that he will "see me soon" in Washington). I believe a general consideration of Talk:Iridology and the discussion there over the past month will further demonstrate that Irismeister continues to avoid and evade dialogue, preferring to disrupt discussion by labeling editors as "bullies", "Wikicops", and other epithets preferred by him, and by his trademark use of non sequiturs. It is my belief that this behavior constitutes a flagrant disregard for the judgment handed down by the AC earlier this year. I do not know if I, as complainant, am to offer the consequence I think fitting, or comment in any other way concerning the behavior that Irismeister has directed at myself and others. I hope that the AC will instruct me on these matters. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Jwrosenzweig 16:28, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- In adding additional diffs, I will note that in some cases other editors made remarks to Irismeister which are not part of productive dialogue (although they believe they have reasons for doing so, and I understand the kind of frustration that drives editors to such ends). I would ask that those remarks not be used as justification for a reduced consequence for User:Irismeister. I know that, if I have personally attacked Irismeister in any way, or abused my editing privileges here for the pursuance of a personal grievance, I would be more than willing to accept censure (as I never intended any such behavior and will apologize the moment it is made known to me) -- I believe the other editors who have dealt with Irismeister would accept the same. I do not know if this is a reasonable comment to make here, and I do not wish to give the indication that I doubt your judgment: I simply want to be sure that, if, among the cases noted above, there are cases where Irismeister appears to have fought fire with more fire, the AC knows that I am asking for consequences on both sides rather than simply calling it all "fair play". And I believe that the links above do not show a case of editors harassing and attacking each other equally. Thank you for your consideration, Jwrosenzweig 23:05, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I know that there is no place for me to respond to allegations made in the "responses by the accused/supporters" section -- I would respectfully ask the members of the AC what I am to do if Irismeister continues to direct this abuse at me? Having returned from 12 days away in an effort to avoid this kind of attack, I find myself subject to it within hours - is the best solution for me to leave the site again, perhaps this time for a longer period of time? If someone can advise me, it would be much appreciated. Jwrosenzweig 23:35, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
After being informed of an injunction by the AC not to edit any pages but the arbitration pages, his user page, and user talk page (an injunction it is evident that he saw because he replied to it on his talk page), Irismeister edited Talk:Alternative medicine in violation of that ban [1]. I would further note for the AC that Irismeister's promise to leave the site (bidding us farewell, etc.) should not be considered trustworthy, as this comment demonstrates he's made such promises before.
Evidence by Irismeister[edit]
Leave me alone, will you ? - I have no time to lose in "defending" myself for bogus arbitrations, meant only to keep my away from doing serious work in Wiki. Whenever a pair of creative, idealistic medical writers appears, a pack of Wikipolice wolves "arbitrates" their work, which by the way is free, not paid and volunteer, and might as well stop bluntly (if this weren't the purpose of arbitration harassment in the first place) - irismeister 23:56, 2004 Jun 1 (UTC)
It's not a bad idea afterall! But let's be serious, Jwrosenzweig - you are only diverting the diversion again. You are not abused, you are the abuser. You are a wolf dressed as a lamb, crying wolf :O) For the only abuse here is to chase away MDs from contributing medical stuff with your paranoid diversions. You were looking after me in Google instead of reading what you or Theresa kept cutting. So yes, go get a life! Go on vacation! And yes, do edit with more professional proofreading Theresa agendas in mind (that really does help anyone here). Lastly, OK, you can thank me for my consideration - for I do not divert your diversions (see your long history of iridologic "cuts-and-asking-for-proof-which-you-justt-cut"). I am currently measuring your Wikipolice indices using all my archives - irismeister 23:45, 2004 Jun 1 (UTC)
Thank you for your disconsideration! Hi, Jwrosenzweig, so you are back from your blushing vacation! Only to keep the dirty Wikipolice habits, that is. But what did you (beyond us mortals) do when you saw yourself proposed for desysoping and review of admin actions? What did you do when you saw FACTS proving your anti-alternative medicine POVs, and diversionist tactics ? You ran away, my fellow editor! Not recommended for an ice hockey player! And your thin veiled threats mindset reveals only your thin contorted ratiocinations - for FACTS NEVER THREAT ANYONE ONLY SETTLE THE RECORD STRAIGHT, FOR THE RECORD! irismeister 23:14, 2004 Jun 1 (UTC)
Tell you what: Do you consider yourself to be beyond critic?
If yes - go away, complete with your lousy "arbitration" - your figleaf for your craving to see me banned!
If not, then why the hell did you faint and leave as a coward the very moment I presented evidence for desysoping you ?
The emperor is naked, the figleaf has fallen, and the crux of the unfolding drama is that there is nothing there left for us to see. Nothing at all, ball-wise! :O- irismeister 22:48, 2004 Jun 4 (UTC)
First resort: talk to the other parties involved[edit]
The first resort in resolving almost any conflict is to discuss the issue on a talk page. Either contact the other party on that user's talk page, or use the talk page associated with the article in question. Never carry on a dispute on the article page itself. When discussing an issue, stay cool and don't mount personal attacks. Take the other person's perspective into account and try to reach a compromise. Assume that the other person is acting in good faith unless you have clear evidence to the contrary. - irismeister 22:52, 2004 Jun 4 (UTC)
DID YOU READ THAT, CHIEF COMPLAINANT ?
Evidence by John Gohde[edit]
This is User:Mr-Natural-Health whose name has some how gotten dragged into this dispute in the following Statement by affected party as well as comments that were made by User:Fred Bauder.
- Emergency, Mayday, Wiki Wiki
- Mayday! The WikiRepublic is in danger! Wikipolice make their coup d'êtat! Please add your voice and come help John here wiki wiki. He is subject not only of personal attacks, this he is getting used to, but to a seven-months full blown campaign of character assasination - by SYSOPS. Look what they say here ! If you stand by your principles, sysops, and editors, it's time to act now. Thank you ! - Yours, - irismeister 17:25, 2004 May 19 (UTC)
This comment by irismeister was written in plain English. It was irismeister's way of coming to my assistance. And, was referring to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Theresa Knott which was and still is explained in more detail on my talk page. In fact, I believe that I actually could have used this comment by irismeister as one of the required attempts of resolving my dispute with Theresa Knott on a talk page. Thanks in part to this effort of irismeister Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Theresa Knott was certified within the 48 time limit.
Therefore, this quote of irismeister cannot be used as part of the Statement by affected party since it was a totally proper statement written in plain English.
Furthermore, I totally resent being dragged into this mess by the comments of User:Fred Bauder. I have nothing to do with this matter. I am not a party in this arbitration. And, I want to be offically removed as having anything to do with any such arbitration process since I clearly have nothing to do with the behavior of irismeister . -- John Gohde 03:57, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
- This matter should also address Iridology enlisting other users such as Mr. Natural Health to evade our prior decree. - What kind of a statement is this?
- I am not on probation. You had that option, but you all elected not to put me on probation. In regards, to irismeister you had the option to apply your ban to the talk page, but you all elected not to ban irismeister from using Talk:Iridology. The same goes for irismeister enlisting other users to evade your prior decree. Beyond the fact, that I see no evidence that anybody actually did what you are alleging; you all had the option to put that in writing, but you all elected not to. I saw irismeister babbling away on Talk:Iridology precisely because your prior decree did not specifically ban irismeister from posting on Talk:Iridology. That is entirely your own fault, and I have absolutely nothing to do with how you guys failed to properly word your original decree. As a lawyer, you should have a lot of experience writing court orders for judges. So, why you all elected to allow irismeister to babble away on Talk:Iridology is totally beyond me. So, please stop trying to blame me and other users for what you guys actually wrote in your prior decree against irismeister. -- John Gohde 05:04, 31 May 2004 (UTC)